The following appeared in a memorandum from a regional supervisor of post office operations:
"During a two-week study of postal operations, the Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City post office, even though the cities are about the same size. Moreover, customer satisfaction appears to be higher in Presto City, since the study found fewer complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Therefore, the
postmasters at these two offices should exchange assignments: the Presto City postmaster will solve the problems of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Lento City office while the Lento City postmaster learns firsthand the superior methods of Presto City."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Response:
The author concludes that the postmasters of Presto city and Lento City should exchange assignments as this will help in solving the problems at the Lento City post office. However, this conclusion relies on the assumptions with no clear evidence. In this discussion I will highlight these assumptions and suggest ways in which the author can strengthen the argument.
Firstly, the author assumes that the customer satisfaction in Presto City Post office is higher than the Lento City post office since there are less complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Less number of complaints doesn't always suggest customer satisfaction. It is equally likely that the procedure to lodge a complaint in Presto City post office is so tedious that most of the customers don't bother to complain.
Secondly, the author states that in the study Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City Post Office. The author gives no details as to how the study was conducted and if both post offices were given similar resources. It is quite possible that the Presto City post office has more man power and resources than the Lento City post office. If this is true, then the comparison between the two post offices is not fair.
Thirdly, from the argument it seems that the author assumes that the postmaster alone is responsible for the efficient working of the post office. This doesn't seem plausible as there are many others such as the mail men and other postal workers who also contribute to the performance. So just transferring the Presto City postmaster to Lento City might not help.
Lastly, the author assumes that the the two-week study is a true reflection of the capability of the two post offices. It could be possible that during the two week study period the Lento City Post Office was going through some internal reorganization because of which the efficiency of its employees was affected. If this is true then it weakens the argument considerably and raises concern on the validity of the results of the study.
In sum, the argument presented here is unconvincing. It relies on questionable assumptions and flawed reasoning. Had the author provided details as to how the study was conducted and if both post offices had similar resources, then the argument would have been more convincing. As it stands, the argument is weak and needs more details.
"During a two-week study of postal operations, the Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City post office, even though the cities are about the same size. Moreover, customer satisfaction appears to be higher in Presto City, since the study found fewer complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Therefore, the
postmasters at these two offices should exchange assignments: the Presto City postmaster will solve the problems of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Lento City office while the Lento City postmaster learns firsthand the superior methods of Presto City."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Response:
The author concludes that the postmasters of Presto city and Lento City should exchange assignments as this will help in solving the problems at the Lento City post office. However, this conclusion relies on the assumptions with no clear evidence. In this discussion I will highlight these assumptions and suggest ways in which the author can strengthen the argument.
Firstly, the author assumes that the customer satisfaction in Presto City Post office is higher than the Lento City post office since there are less complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Less number of complaints doesn't always suggest customer satisfaction. It is equally likely that the procedure to lodge a complaint in Presto City post office is so tedious that most of the customers don't bother to complain.
Secondly, the author states that in the study Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City Post Office. The author gives no details as to how the study was conducted and if both post offices were given similar resources. It is quite possible that the Presto City post office has more man power and resources than the Lento City post office. If this is true, then the comparison between the two post offices is not fair.
Thirdly, from the argument it seems that the author assumes that the postmaster alone is responsible for the efficient working of the post office. This doesn't seem plausible as there are many others such as the mail men and other postal workers who also contribute to the performance. So just transferring the Presto City postmaster to Lento City might not help.
Lastly, the author assumes that the the two-week study is a true reflection of the capability of the two post offices. It could be possible that during the two week study period the Lento City Post Office was going through some internal reorganization because of which the efficiency of its employees was affected. If this is true then it weakens the argument considerably and raises concern on the validity of the results of the study.
In sum, the argument presented here is unconvincing. It relies on questionable assumptions and flawed reasoning. Had the author provided details as to how the study was conducted and if both post offices had similar resources, then the argument would have been more convincing. As it stands, the argument is weak and needs more details.
